With thanks to the “usual suspects” – De Regnis Duobus, Green Baggins, and Tchula Presbyterian Church – we are alerted to the news that yesterday the Standing Judicial Commission of the Presbyterian Church in America issued their decision in the case of Bordwine, et al. v. Pacific Northwest Presbytery.
The brief background on the case is that the 35th General Assembly (2007) approved a report on the Federal Vision Theology stating that it was not in accord with the Westminster Standards (the Standards). Since then, presbyteries have been examining members who have declared exceptions to the Westminster Standards and this case results from one of these examinations, the exam of TE Peter Leithart by Pacific Northwest Presbytery (PNW). While the Presbytery decided that Pastor Leithart’s views were not out of accord with the Standards some of the dissenting members of the Presbytery filed a complaint first with the Presbytery, and when that was denied a complaint was filed with the SJC. In brief, the SJC agreed with the complainants.
First, it is important to note that this is a “Proposed Decision” which under the SJC Manual 19.5 is not binding on the parties but if a party objects within 14 days they may request a rehearing on the case before the full Commission. The final decision will be issued in March, 2010.
In their decision, the SJC reviews the history of the case and the work of the “study committee” the Presbytery put together to investigate the differences that TE Leithart voluntarily offered to the Stated Clerk of the Presbytery following the GA approval of the report. The SJC notes:
The PNW Study Committee was charged with examining Leithart’s fitness to continue as a PCA Teaching Elder in light of the June 2007 General Assembly’s receptions of the Ad Interim Committee’s Report on the theology of the Federal Vision. In spite of being entitled a “study Committee,” [sic] what was essentially formed was a committee with an assignment to conduct a BCO 31-2 investigation.
It is helpful to note at this point that a “BCO 31-2 investigation” is the response of a session or presbytery when there is a report regarding one of its members “affecting their Christian character.” That section goes on to say that if that investigation “should result in raising a strong presumption of the guilt of the party involved” then a judicial case is in order. I bring this up here because the fundamental question answered by the SJC is whether the Presbytery failed to properly find a “strong presumption of guilt.”
The SJC decision then goes on to say:
The work product of this Committee, including the Committee Report, the Minority Report, and Leithart’ [sic] Response, constituted an excellent BCO 31-2 investigative report. The only conclusion that a court should reach, given the excellent work product produced by the PNW Study Committee, would be that there is a strong presumption of guilt that some of the views of Leithart are out of accord with some of the fundamentals of the system of doctrine taught in the Standards. This does not mean that Leithart is a heretic. He is not. This does not mean that Leithart is not or whether he is a Christian. He is. This does not necessarily mean that Leithart is outside of the broader reformed community. The sole question to be determined is whether Leithart’s views place him outside of the Standards as adopted by the Presbyterian Church in America.
Regarding the specifications of error by the Presbytery, there were three with two upheld and one not sustained. The one not sustained was that findings and rulings in a previous SJC decision were misapplied. However, the BCO (14-7) says that previous decisions are to be given “due and serious consideration” but are only binding on the parties involved. Therefore, for another presbytery to not follow a previous decision is not in itself an error.
The two errors sustained had to do with how the Presbytery handled the initial complaint. In one case they ruled that it was a motion to reconsider and having voted in the minority the complainants were not in a position to bring such a motion. In the second case the Presbytery had ruled that without charges actually be filed in the case a complaint was out of order. To both specifications the SJC reminded everyone that under BCO 43-1 “it is the right of any communing member of the Church in good standing to make complaint against any action of a court to whose jurisdiction he is subject.”
The SJC decision then makes extensive, detailed, and specific reference to Leithart’s statements to support the opinion that there is a strong presumption of guilt that he is out of accord with the Standards. They note that while Leithart appeals to Scripture in support of his views, and that Scripture is the “supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined,” (WCF 1.10) they also point out that although the Constitution is subordinate and fallible the BCO (29-1) affirms that it is still adopted as “standard expositions of the teachings of Scripture in relation to both faith and practice.” The decision then goes on to say:
By appealing to Scripture in this way to justify positions that are out of accord with our Standards, an individual, or group, is in effect… amending the Constitution, not by judicial act, but by personal interpretation. If someone believes that the Standards have incorrectly or inadequately stated what Scripture says about a particular topic, then instead of ignoring what our Standards state and justifying their positions by personal interpretations of Scripture which are not consistent with the Standards, they should propose amendments to the Standards to clarify or expand the Standards, since our Constitution holds them to be “standard expositions of the teaching of Scripture.”
In my mind that summarizes the essence of being Presbyterian – we acknowledge Scripture supreme and our interpretations fallible, but our discernment of Scripture and God’s will in our courts (in the Presbyterian sense) as a collected body is on the whole more sound than our individual interpretations.
Anyway, back to the decision… What next?
It is our opinion that PNW, even though confronted with statement(s) and writing(s) of Leithart that place him out of accord with the fundamentals of the Standards, as adopted by the Presbyterian Church in America, chose to place Leithart’ [sic] statements in the kindest of light and engage in critical thinking and reasoned judgment… [long quote from the PNW report not included]
In failing to exercise this critical thinking and reasoned judgment, PNW has failed to guard the church of teachings and writings “which injured the purity and peace of the church,” (BCO 13-9.f) and in doing so has caused much pastoral confusion and harm.
In conclusion the decision states:
In determining what is the appropriate remedy, the SJC remands and sends this case back to PNW with instructions to institute process, based on this finding of a strong presumption of guilt, and appoint a prosecutor, to prepare an Indictment of Leithart and to conduct the case.
A final decision will be issued in Marc
h 2010.
While I am sure there will be a lot of reaction coming out in the next few days as the decision is read and maybe a full hearing is requested, and I will post some of that when appropriate, today I will leave you with the words of TE Jason Stellman, one of the complainants in this case, in his concluding comments on his blog De Regnis Duobus:
Please be in prayer for all who are involved in this matter,regardless of which “side” they are on. When it comes to issues surrounding the so-called Federal Vision, there are those who believe the very heart of the gospel is at stake, and on the other hand there are those who feel that mountains are being made out of molehills and our denomination is being turned into a mere sect. But what no one should forget is that intertwined with all the doctrinal debate are the personal relationships and livelihoods of those involved. All that to say that this is no occasion for congratulatory back-slapping. Just as the Reformed distinguished themselves from the fundamentalists in that they left the mainline churches weeping rather than rejoicing, so we who witness the state of our churches would do well to lament our own lack of unity.
.There are no real winners here.
[For some more great discussion with TE Stellman about this case that really helps fill in a lot of details and put the human face on it I highly recommend the November 2008 installment of the podcast Ordinary Means.]
UPDATE: Peter Leithart has posted a theological response to some of the SJC’s comments about his views.